anneofgreengables

The Bailey's have never applied for any permits prior to the moratorium nor did they file an occupational tax certificate. And I can guarentee you that the state had not already assigned these patients to this home prior to the moratorium as the current state and condition of the home does not meet state requirements for person with memory care issues. The only thing Mr. Bailey applied for was to make a request for a Waiver of the Moratoruim that had been put in place and on March 11 of 2013 he filed to request a variance to the new distance ordinance, but Mr. Bailey currently has no right to request a variance on property he does not own, unless the owners request a variance and appoint him as their agent which has not occured here. Someone is feeding you a bunch of hogwash. Call Planning and zoning and ask them for all the permits that have been filed for on 910 N. Davis. I have their respone in an e-mail and it says "there have been no permits or applications filed for this address."

Exactly what proof did Mr. Forgey provide to the Planning Commission that showed no negative impact would occur on the neighborhood, property values, or traffic????.....I am waiting for your answer, oh....yeah because he provided no proof he just said it wouldn't. Well the last time I checked that is not proof that's an opinion.

You are welcome, RedEric. It's amazing how unfactual this whole ordele has been. And lawd the rudeness of people when they are called out on untruths. Unbelievable! Mr. Bailey could've near about started a personal care home on the roof top of that home on 910 N. Davis for an entire year, but HE chose not to file an OTC to do so. One of the criteria that the Planning Commission was called to look at when making their decision to allow the vairiance or not was, is the burden of the ordinance self-imposed. This is totally self-imposed. As our grandma's used to say, always wear you clean underwear out as never know when you will be in an accident. Same thing here, always secure your business as you never know when the laws are going to change, in this case he would have been grandfathered in.

You talkin to me Jack! I am putting up a fight and my disabled son is putting up a fight because he himself likes living in a residential area and does not want this area to become institutionalized in character, which is exactly what the distance ordinance protects. So, we are fighting for all disabled people that are being removed from institutionalized settings to guarantee that where they will be located is in a residential area separated by 1000 feet from any other business, in business to house disabled patients. These people deserve to live in a residential setting not an area so stacked with personal care homes that the residential setting they so desire and need is diluted! And btw what neighborhood do you claim to represent, that is so embarrassed? I am embarrassed that anyone with children or family members disabled or not would think that this location is appropriate for persons who can not protect and defend themselves to live!

The snag for Mr. Bailey and his 910 N. Davis location came about with a distance requirement of a thousand feet separating the operation of one personal care from another. The distance of 1,000 feet the Planning Department's highly paid Director, Mr. Forgey, argued for in the months preceding the adoption of the new ordinances claiming they were needed to make sure that residential neighborhoods remained residential and grouping of areas filled with personal care homes did not occur. If not for the distance ordinance, the city would run the risk of appearing or allowing the "institutionalizing" of an area for the purpose of placing disabled individuals. Further, that the distance regulation was placed as such to protect the residents moving into a personal care home and not so much the neighborhood where the personal care home was located, other than to make sure that persons were being placed in residential locations and not institutionalized locations and reduce the possible cluster of personal care homes thereby not institutionalizing an area. This is the very reason the state of GA was sued in the first place, because we were warehousing mentally handicapped persons in institutionalized settings. We can't remove them from a facility only to relocate them to an institutionalized zone/area in a city. They must be relocated to a residential setting and that is what the 1000 foot distance protects. The city of Atlanta has a 2,000 foot distance requirement. Other cities have more, some have less, but this is the distance that Mr. Forgey proposed and recommended based on research of the law, ordinances in other cities, and experts in this area. Unfortunately for Mr. Bailey, the 910 N. Davis Street is located approximately 500 feet from Englewood Personal Care Home's Administrative offices and 765 feet from Engelwood's Personal Care home Residence. For the Planning Commission to have allowed for the variance could have made the City of Albany appear to be setting up a zoned or specific area to place disabled persons, thereby institutionalizing an area which is in direct conflict with what the State of Ga has been court ordered to do away with. The end.

Now, back to September of 2012, a year after Mr. Bailey told a staff member at the Planning Department of his intent with the property, but still had never filed any paperwork, application, building permits to do any accommodating construction for the handicapped residents, NOTHING, Mr. Forgey (not Karnac the Great, but Paul Forgey, the Planning Director with the City of Albany) presented his concerns to the city commissioners that the city needed to review the city's ordinances regarding personal care homes, the commissioners agreed and placed a moratorium on OTC's filed for the purposes of operating a personal care home until the ordinances could be reviewed and brought up to compliance. There were no pending OTC's at the time of the moratorium being put in place. Mr. Forgey and his staff researched and drafted and presented and recommended new definitions of personal care homes and ordinances relating to same. From September 2012 until February 2013 the newly drafted and proposed ordinances went back and forth from the city commissioners to the Planning Comission to Forgey's office. The result was, at the time the new ordinances were passed, considered very well researched and in compliance with all issues that were sought to be addressed. During the moratorium period, Mr. Bailey filed his first ever application that would have documented his intent with 910 N. Davis and that was an application to Waive the Moratorium. The city commissioners voted to NOT waive the moratorium as they were in hopes of getting close to having the ordinances ready. At the City commission meeting that Mr. Bailey attended seeking the waiver, he was asked several questions by the City commissioners, to include: Have you made any Capital improvements on the property...do you own the property...the commissioners determined that he had not made any capital improvements on the property prior to the moratorium being put in place and that he had acquired the property more than a year prior to the moratorium under a FIVE year lease. Shortly thereafter, the new ordinances were adopted by the city commission. To be cont....

Carlton Fletcher when are you going to get your facts straight? Is it you who is feeding the DOJ false information, because you are certainly feeding the citizen of Albany with your reporting with false information. Are you a journalist in the capacity of this article or is this an opinion column! In Mr. Bailey's letter to the planning commission, his own words were that he "acquired the property in September of 2011". He then states that he went to the planning and zoning office in September of 2011 and spoke with a staff member, Ms. Brazewell and told her of his intentions for the property located at 910 N. Davis. She told him that at that time there would be no zoning problems for him to operate a personal care home. She was correct. For an ENTIRE year, Mr. Bailey could have applied for an Occupational Tax Certificate to operate the personal care home and he would have been granted the OTC. Mr. Bailey, though never applied for an OTC to operate a personal care home at the 910 N. Davis location. In fact, to date he has never applied for an OTC to operate a personal care home at that location. In September of 2012, Mr. Forgey, in his concern regarding litigation stemming from Fair Housing Act law suits against City ordinances in CALIFORNIA (mind you) and by the Bazalon Suit against the state of GA claiming that the state was "warehousing mentally disable individuals in institutionalized settings, and in particular a facility in Thomasville which housed some 400 patients", went to the Planning Commission and City Commissioners and told them that it was his recommendation that the city review its ordinances as they relate to personal care homes so that the city would be in compliance with all issues surrounding these litigations. The agreement reached with the state of GA and Bazalon was that this facility in Thomasville would be closed down and these patients would be integrated into personal care home living arrangements in RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods, removing them from an institutionalized setting! This lawsuit against the state of GA also prompted the state of GA to review state laws regarding personal care homes. In January of this year, the state of GA gave personal care homes for 2 or more residents its own section and definition, just as Albany has just done, removing the somewhat private residential status that personal care homes enjoyed, as well as adding a multitude of various rules and regulations to make sure that BUSINESSES and or individuals that operated these type homes were providing the best, safest quality of care to the residents. That is why, as we read a few months ago, that the Fire Chief was now mandated by the state to inspect personal care homes with 2 or more residents which until January, they were unable to do so because they were considered private residences. To be cont....

@mik178 Fact: the Bailey’s filed the request for a variance to the 1000 ft distance ordinance. To request a variance to any ordinances relating to property, you must be the owner of the property. The owner can appoint an agent to represent him before the Planning Commission. The Bailey’s provided a notarized statement/verification that as of 3/11/2013, the records for Albany/Dougherty County Georgia showed that Eric T. Bailey and Laura Bailey were the owners of the property located at 910 North Davis. The record books for Albany/Dougherty County do no show this. At the April 4 hearing for the Bailey’s request for the variance, Mr. Bailey was made aware that this was an issue in that he had to be the owner or authorized agent in order to seek a variance and that he needed to file a deed showing he was the owner or bring them the deed to show proof. Yesterday, a reconsideration to the denied variance was asked for by Nathan Davis. Interestingly, like the DOJ, Nathan opened his statement to the Commission telling them that he too had been reading the paper, following the story and was concerned that the Commission might not have considered the “reasonable accommodation” clause of the Fair Housing. Nathan was told that, no, it never got that far, a) proof of ownership was an issue and also the Commission was concerned about any precedence’s they would be setting if they allowed the variance in that the Commission just passed the ordinances less than 2 months ago. Further, Mr. Bailey came to this reconsideration hearing again without proof of ownership and the Deed office still has no deed filed showing Mr. Bailey is the owner of the property, YET our City Attorney and Planning Director were hair-lipped to try and get his variance approved. To be cont....